Here’s the Barbara Everett quote about “texts” which I could not find when I wrote my recent piece about literary criticism. From her review of Carpenter’s Auden biography in the LRB. My thanks to Sean Keilen for sending it to me. (Sean has a new book about Shakespeare.
The simplistic assertion that John Carey argues that 'critics only vandalise them [texts] by reading them' lumpenly (and delberately?) misses his point. I have a (well-thumbed - and signed!) copy in front of me and it's clear that his argument with critics is more nuanced, insisting - with, indeed, a degree of reluctance - that even the best (Ricks and Empsom, for example) can grossly distort textsi in their determination to read them wilfully to bolster a case they've decided on, accidentally - perhaps - inveigling their way into a reader's subsequent reading and even enjoyment of a text.
It doesn't seem like from the perspective of the artist that first thing would be at all possible... Nor the second either actually, but especially the first. I suppose the impression that either of these things had happened might be imparted to the reader, though... I don't know.
Delighted to be introduced to Barbara Everett - thanks again Henry - you continually introduce us all to writers and thinkers and all to our benefit. I'm grateful I mostly ignored or missed out on the whole 'text' debate. People - including critics and academics - read with a certain amount of bias based on the way their minds are formed. We're all just human after all.
What is Everett's definition of literature? Mine is any written text. OED's first definition includes the word "texts". If by literature she means works (is that better?) of a certain canonical caliber, then I can understand how "text" reads too neutral, too broad tent. But that's why that word is accurate and useful. Not everything written down constitutes high art. Currently, I am taking a literature course at Oxford, and one of our tutor's handouts states for us to use "text". So maybe this is the scholar vs. critic thing.
She was old school and disliked “literary theory”, some of the tenets and practices of which (such as treating literature as “text”) will be presented to you as part of the prevailing doctrine of literary studies. There’s much less of it than there once was, and it’s not all to do with French stuff, but it is something to keep in mind. They may wish you to say text but that doesn’t make it true or mean you have to believe it once you’ve done your own thinking on the topic.
This was fun, revisiting a topic that goes back to the 80s at least, when absolutely everything was a text. I expect something better of John Carey, he can be an illuminating critic. That “text” concept has such an archaic ring now.
I think you miss my point re John Carey. An example he quotes is a study of 'Samson Agonistes' arguing (seriously) that the protagonist achieves release/relief from constipation when he destroys the temple.
Another interesting post, Henry. I fancy it was Barthes who initiated the irritating habit of referring to works as 'texts'.
In a novel called British Story (Route, 2014), I wrote about an academic who's 'transparently' fascinated by Sir John Falstaff -- happy to send you a copy if you fancy.
I read the first 30 pages of Sean's book. I will put it in my que to purchase. It was like having a tutor guide me through Love's Labor's Lost. It was wonderful. Thank you.
A text is a written or printed piece of work. If the literati find it offensive to be reminded of the materiality of their precious works, then maybe they need to think again.
The simplistic assertion that John Carey argues that 'critics only vandalise them [texts] by reading them' lumpenly (and delberately?) misses his point. I have a (well-thumbed - and signed!) copy in front of me and it's clear that his argument with critics is more nuanced, insisting - with, indeed, a degree of reluctance - that even the best (Ricks and Empsom, for example) can grossly distort textsi in their determination to read them wilfully to bolster a case they've decided on, accidentally - perhaps - inveigling their way into a reader's subsequent reading and even enjoyment of a text.
I agree that she elides his argument, and I think there is truth in both of their perspectives
Larkin’s great, unparalleled art is to leave no gap between words and experience, words and pure thought.
It doesn't seem like from the perspective of the artist that first thing would be at all possible... Nor the second either actually, but especially the first. I suppose the impression that either of these things had happened might be imparted to the reader, though... I don't know.
Delighted to be introduced to Barbara Everett - thanks again Henry - you continually introduce us all to writers and thinkers and all to our benefit. I'm grateful I mostly ignored or missed out on the whole 'text' debate. People - including critics and academics - read with a certain amount of bias based on the way their minds are formed. We're all just human after all.
What is Everett's definition of literature? Mine is any written text. OED's first definition includes the word "texts". If by literature she means works (is that better?) of a certain canonical caliber, then I can understand how "text" reads too neutral, too broad tent. But that's why that word is accurate and useful. Not everything written down constitutes high art. Currently, I am taking a literature course at Oxford, and one of our tutor's handouts states for us to use "text". So maybe this is the scholar vs. critic thing.
She was an Oxford tutor for many years!
Interesting ... that muddies my theory a bit.
She was old school and disliked “literary theory”, some of the tenets and practices of which (such as treating literature as “text”) will be presented to you as part of the prevailing doctrine of literary studies. There’s much less of it than there once was, and it’s not all to do with French stuff, but it is something to keep in mind. They may wish you to say text but that doesn’t make it true or mean you have to believe it once you’ve done your own thinking on the topic.
Thank you for introducing me to Barbara Everett! I really enjoyed these selections. And now I want to seek out Larkin.
She’s wonderful
This was fun, revisiting a topic that goes back to the 80s at least, when absolutely everything was a text. I expect something better of John Carey, he can be an illuminating critic. That “text” concept has such an archaic ring now.
I think you miss my point re John Carey. An example he quotes is a study of 'Samson Agonistes' arguing (seriously) that the protagonist achieves release/relief from constipation when he destroys the temple.
Bob, I think I’m still missing your point! All the best—
She wasn’t entirely fair to him
Another interesting post, Henry. I fancy it was Barthes who initiated the irritating habit of referring to works as 'texts'.
In a novel called British Story (Route, 2014), I wrote about an academic who's 'transparently' fascinated by Sir John Falstaff -- happy to send you a copy if you fancy.
Michael
http://michaelnath.wordpress.com
I read the first 30 pages of Sean's book. I will put it in my que to purchase. It was like having a tutor guide me through Love's Labor's Lost. It was wonderful. Thank you.
A text is a written or printed piece of work. If the literati find it offensive to be reminded of the materiality of their precious works, then maybe they need to think again.
That’s not what she’s arguing with. She’s against “theory”, Barthes, etc.